The Veterinarian Magazinehttp://theveterinarian.com.au
Australia's leading veterinary magazine.Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:38:14 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.6http://theveterinarian.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cropped-fblogo-32x32.jpgThe Veterinarian Magazinehttp://theveterinarian.com.au
3232139025248Vet Ethics: Animal welfare all part of the planhttp://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2281
http://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2281#respondTue, 27 Feb 2018 03:38:14 +0000http://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2281Victoria has released a new plan for animal welfare in the state. Animal Welfare Action Plan – Improving the Welfare of Animals in Victoria was developed after submissions from industry, veterinary bodies, welfare organizations, and other groups. The plan is designed to cover the welfare of companion animals, farm animals, animals in sport and science, and animals in the wild. Victorian Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford claims that the Animal Welfare Action Plan sets a new benchmark for animal welfare that reflects community expectations around how animals are treated.” Victoria’s Ambassador for Animal Welfare, Lizzie Blandthorn MP, helped to develop the plan.

One of the main aspects of the plan is an overhaul of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, commonly known as POCTAA. This legislation is now thirty years old. Over that time, community attitudes towards animals have continued to evolve. Animal welfare excites stronger public feeling than it did several decades ago. Witness the overwhelming public response to revelations of widespread cruelty in Australia’s live animal export industry, or the increasing opposition to puppy farms.

The Animal Welfare Action Plan seeks to revisit codes of practice and guidelines on how animals are treated. In addition, it aims to promote education in order to improve “attitudes, knowledge, skills and compliance” in regards to animal welfare, and to foster collaboration on how to proactively address animal welfare issues. It also looks to strengthen enforcement of welfare legislation.
Importantly, there are plans to establish a body called Animal Welfare Victoria. According to the government, this body would gather together expertise and knowledge to enhance the goals of education, research, collaboration, enforcement, and legislative change that are part of the government’s stated vision for animal welfare.

This vision appears attractive to those interested in animal welfare. However, it has attracted some criticism from both pro-industry and pro-animal groups. For example, some of those in the latter camp argue that the plan is biased towards maintaining and even extending farming practices that are harmful to animals, rather than towards adopting, as the government intends, a more progressive vision on animal welfare.

It is true that one of the aims of the plan is to boost Australia’s reputation on animal welfare in order to remain competitive in animal agricultural industries. The government is no proponent of radical change in relation to animal farming. On the other hand, the Action Plan and the creation of Animal Welfare Victoria is a reflection of community interest in the need for better treatment of animals.

Part of point of the plan is to recognize animal sentience, or the fact that many animals have feelings and desires and can experience pain and pleasure. While the reality of animal sentience is something that hardly anyone seriously denies, making an explicit political declaration about animal sentience is surely a significant move. For while few people truly believe that animals are not sentient, it is all too easy to treat them as if they were not. In other words, it is easy to ignore the fact that they can suffer and that they have needs for a variety of positive experiences if their lives are to go well. It is especially easy if we have vested interests in using them for our ends.

The Victorian government has also recently initiated other legislative changes that may promote animal welfare. It has moved to prevent landlords from disallowing tenants who have pets. This could help to support the human-animal bond and reduce abandonment, relinquishment, and rehoming of companion animals. The government has also introduced legislation to wipe out puppy farms, including by preventing pet shops from selling animals unless they are from shelters, pounds or voluntarily registered foster carers.

Some have criticized the creation of Animal Welfare Victoria for the very different reason that it goes too far in the direction of appeasing pro-animal groups and attitudes. For example, the Victorian Farmers Federation opposes the bringing together of farm animals and companion animals under the one umbrella. VFF believes that Animal Welfare Victoria is unnecessary because animal industries already lead the world on animal welfare. The new welfare body, the Federation claims, would also sideline the existing Livestock Industry Consultative Committee, which deals with animal welfare issues in a way that, it says, satisfies community attitudes.
Animal Welfare Victoria is to award $500,000 in grants to non-profit community organizations to advance our understanding of animal welfare. It will also publish an annual animal welfare report. Community attitudes to animals continue to change.

So too does the science of animal welfare. A more independent body that has broad expertise may be more capable of remaining abreast of changes in community values and of improving our understanding of the nature of animal welfare. Time will tell if the new action plan achieves its goals.

Do you have any comments – or ethical conundrums – for Simon? Email us.

]]>http://theveterinarian.com.au/?feed=rss2&p=228102281Abstracts: Review of environmental enrichment for broiler chickenshttp://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2279
http://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2279#respondThu, 22 Feb 2018 03:35:58 +0000http://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2279Welfare problems are commonly found in both conventional and organic production of broiler chickens. In order to reduce the extent of welfare problems, it has been suggested to provide stimulating, enriched environments. The aim of the present paper is to provide a review of the effect on behaviour and welfare of the different kinds of environmental enrichments in the production of broilers that have been described in the scientific literature.

Environmental enrichment is defined as an improvement of the environment of captive animals, which increases the behavioural opportunities of the animal and leads to improvements of the biological function. This definition has been broadened to include practical and economic aspects, as any enrichment strategy that adversely affects the health of animals or that has too many economic or practical constraints will never be implemented on commercial farms and thus never benefit animals. Environmental enrichment for broilers often has the purpose of satisfying behavioural needs and/or stimulating the broilers to an increased level of activity, which among others will reduce the occurrence of leg problems.

Many of the ideas for environmental enrichment for broilers need to be further developed and studied, preferably in commercial trials, with respect to the use, the effect on behaviour and on other welfare aspects such as leg health, and the interaction with genotype, production system, stocking density, light, and flock size.

In addition, information on the practical application and the economics of the production system is often lacking, although it is important for application in practice.

The claimed purpose of the new standards is to replace old standards that “have not kept pace with community and trading partner expectations”. However, despite undeniable community expectations, relevant standards like the length of time free range hens should spend outdoors, the required minimum eight hours for outdoor access in normal weather specified in the national Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Poultry (4th edition), was left out of the proposed new standards.

The introductions of new standards require a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) and if this process is incomplete, vague and/or inaccurate, one of the cornerstones of the Australian Government justification for regulatory/standards change is adulterated.

Non-factual claims like higher safety of eggs derived from cages were presented in the RIS although a recent report to the Australian Egg Corporation explained that available data about salmonella prevalence in different layer housing systems is inconclusive. A comprehensive review in 2011 concluded that “there is no general consensus about the superior food safety/egg quality of one housing situation over others. (See goo.gl/5oUYua.) In repeated surveys in Queensland in 2014 and 2015 fewer free-range flocks than indoor flocks were found to harbour salmonella. A NSW Food Authority survey (2013), showed that the old single tier cage farms had the lowest salmonella prevalence (10 per cent), free-range farms with moveable sheds (34 per cent), barn based free-range farms (50 per cent), multi-tier cage and barns (100 per cent).

Public documents for discussion (standards, guidelines and the accompanied RIS) can serve their purpose only if the comparative information between different husbandry systems in the RIS is balanced and accurate.

Regardless of any emerging criticism of the RIS and possible costing inaccuracies, significant welfare improvements are bound to be associated with higher costs. The public is asked to provide feedback on various options proposed in the RIS, including the banning of conventional cages, reductions in stocking densities, provision of perches, litter and nests in cage and non-cage systems and banning routine use of hot blade beak trimming and allowing only one routine beak trimming procedure using infra-red equipment. The ability to respond accurately to various proposals would be affected by the accuracy of the information that was provided in the RIS and some issues like, for example, food safety, may engender more public emotions and self-preservation than others.

Apart from trying to judge the welfare aspects and being confronted with a web of pros and cons, as well as trying to grasp the thin line between mental and physical welfare impacts of various housing options, ultimately an important consideration for many is the cost and what we are prepared to pay to optimise the welfare of poultry.

According to the RIS, costings could range from $709m for the bare minimum proposed Standards and Guidelines to $1,125m for the option of phasing out conventional cages over a 20 year period or, $1,128 for the option requiring nests, perches and litter in cage and non-cage systems.

The difference between the cost of the proposed Standards and Guidelines ($709m) and some welfare friendly options in the RIS varies from approximately $118 to $415m extra costs over the proposed basic Standards. Indeed, significant sums of money that could influence attitudes to various welfare friendly proposals. However, what would community attitude be if a mere brass razoo depicting a lyrebird would pay for these welfare options?

Based on 2016/2017 egg production in Australia (459.2m dozen eggs/annum), 10 cents extra for every dozen eggs produced over the next 10 years would result in $459m intake and handsomely pay for the extra costs of options that were estimated by the RIS to be of higher welfare benefits than others.

10 cents per dozen eggs is all it takes to herald in significant welfare improvements!
Too simplistic, I hear economists shouting but perhaps more tangible to understand for those left confused by pros and cons lists and intimidated by six zero figures.

Would the broader community begrudge paying an extra 10 cents per dozen eggs in order to achieve optimal welfare standards for millions and millions of hens?

George Arzeyvia email

Do you have something you’d like to say? Email us to send a Letter to the Editor.

Mission Rabies, a charity set up by UK veterinarian Luke Gamble to help to eliminate rabies, has received a grant from the Rotary Foundation, a global organization based in the USA, to support its rabies-control projects in Goa, India.
The grant was initiated by three Rotary Clubs in Gainesville, Florida, USA, in partnership with the Panaji Mid Town Rotary Club and four other Rotary Clubs in Goa. It will provide vehicles and driver salaries for Mission Rabies’ vaccination projects in the Indian state.
To date, more than 187,554 dogs have been vaccinated as part of the campaign which began in 2014 with the goal of making Goa rabies-free.
Gainesville Rotarian Colin Burrows worked with colleagues to secure the grant. A past president of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association, Burrows is also trustee of Mission Rabies USA.
“Globally, at least one child dies from rabies every nine minutes,” Burrows said. “Thousands of animals also die an agonizing death. The vast majority of human deaths are caused by bites from infected dogs and it has been shown that human cases can be significantly reduced by vaccinating the dogs, a much more cost-effective option than vaccinating people.”
“When I heard a past Rotary District Governor tell us that the battle against polio was almost over, I wondered if we might encourage Rotary to join the fight against rabies. Our then Rotary Club president encouraged me to lead an effort to submit a global grant request to the Rotary Foundation. We found other Rotary Clubs and Rotary Club partners in Goa willing to support our grant submission and I’m delighted that the grant has now been awarded. I’m grateful to my Rotarian colleagues and hope that other Rotary Clubs from around the world will also come together to support Mission Rabies’ work.”
“Mission Rabies is indebted to the Rotary Foundation for its generous support. This grant will provide a dedicated Goa state rabies response team which will strengthen our efforts to safeguard human and animal health by eliminating Rabies completely from Goa,” Gamble said. “We are also grateful for the continuing support we have received from the WSAVA and the WSAVA Foundation. They have been behind us from the start and we greatly value the contribution they have made to our work and the strong collaborative relationship we have established. “We look forward to continuing to work with them and with other stakeholders to ensure that we meet the OIE’s goal to eliminate human rabies by 2030.”

]]>http://theveterinarian.com.au/?feed=rss2&p=226502265Summer holidays’ cruel tollhttp://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2271
http://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2271#respondSun, 11 Feb 2018 03:23:31 +0000http://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2271The RSPCA confirmed the results of an autopsy on a koala found screwed to a post at a lookout point in the Gympie region in mid-January.
The Gympie Times reports that results show the koala was hit by a car and was likely dead before it was secured to the wooden post with building screws.
RSPCA Queensland spokesperson Michael Beatty said there was no blood flow from where it was attached.

He added the autopsy showed the koala suffered trauma to the head and liver and frayed claws consistent with being hit by a car and the body being dragged on the road.
It is believed the animal was dumped in the bush for a few days before being retrieved and displayed.
“It could have been dead for two or three days,” Beatty said.
“At this time of year, every year, really disturbing acts seem to surface. For some reason the summer holidays seem to spark real acts of animal cruelty.”
Beatty said RSPCA could not prosecute anyone involved in the way the koala’s body was treated under the Animal Care and Protection Act, but investigations are continuing.
Koala Rescue Queensland co-founder Ray Chambers described the incident as “absolutely mind-boggling”.
“It’s sort of a first, like that,” he said.
The koala came to wider attention when Dave Phillips saw it on the post on his way to work and stopped to get a better look.
Thinking the koala might be asleep, Phillips sought assistance from a nearby local, and hoped it could survive if wildlife groups tended to it.
The Gympie incident follows an incident in late December in Western Australian where two boys aged 13 and 16 were charged with animal cruelty after they were filmed torturing a joey.
A third boy, alleged to have filmed the abuse, was charged in the following days.
The video depicts a boy grabbing the joey by the tail and attempting to drag it along the ground before another boy punches the animal.
As the joey attempts to escape, it was chased in to a wire fence where it is repeatedly struck.
Prior to the end of the video a boy appears to be attempting to strangle the animal.
SAM WORRAD